posted
The most obvious problem with Blayne's solution is that it ignores the retaliatory escalation by the opposing side.
A: fires one missile B: fires 10 missiles A: fires 100 missiles and so on.
The "winner" is whoever doesn't run out of missiles. Meanwhile both sides lose innocent members of their population in huge numbers, increase their mutual hatred, and shunt an ever increasing proportion of their resources into their military.
The less obvious problem, but one that I think needs to be recognized, is that the deliberate targetting of civilians (which is what random firing of weapons into areas occupied by non-combatants really amounts to) is evil.
Fighting evil with evil is not a good thing for any nation.
Israel has far more to lose in such a tit-for-tat exchange. They have nation status. They have an economy. They have stable government. They look like the more evil party because it would be the STATE making calling for indiscriminate killing, whereas their enemy is characterized as a fanatical band that operates among an innocent civilian population.
The terrorists among the Palestinians would actually benefit greatly if Israel fought on their level using disgusting tactics that kill indiscriminately. Every innocent civilian killed means another family more likely to support anyone who can strike a blow in revenge, and thus more likely to support the terrorists.
I don't see how Israel can fight its way out of this quandary, really. If Palestinians were slaughtered (which I gather no-one here is suggesting other than Blayne), there are still millions of Arabs just a border away. And among them would be some who had relatives among the killed, and some who would take a terrorist approach to Israel.
There are also the powerful nations in the vicinity, some of whom would feel less constrained about attacking Israel if the Palestinian Arabs were no longer in the vicinity having some stake in the territory.
If a way were possible to create a stable Palestinian state, prosperous and well-governed, in the areas that are either not disputed or which have been ceded by Israel, the effect would be a general improvement in Israel's security from the threats from other Arab nations as well.
Much of the push for that to happen is going to have to come from the Palestinians themselves, and from the International community. It might mean setting up economic zones within Palestinian areas, airports, seaports, manufacturing, etc. and power separate from the Israeli supplies, and, perhaps, without Israel's blessing. International money will be the only way to do that, and this "investment" is extremely high risk. In fact, the international community should expect to never see a dime in return -- at least not for a very long time.
It will take massive infusions of cash in a highly volatile, poorly administered area. And the corrupt governments that have plagued the Palestinian people make it almost impossible to put aid dollars to good use in terms of development and long-range plans.
By rights, most of the leaders they have had would've been indicted in most of the rest of the world.
When it comes right down to it, there is little that Israel can do on its own to secure the peace. When the rest of the world gets serious about the issues there, it may become painfully obvious that the best way to make improvement is to require a certain type of government in Palestine.
That ultimately implies the use of force.
Which is pretty much the last thing the area needs.
A firm rejection of terrorism by the Palestinian people as a whole -- to include rejection of all groups like Hamas, etc., is, the only thing that would make me think a peaceful solution is possible.
It would not mean that Palestinians would have to give up on their fight for justice, but it would mean that they'd have to do so using only non-violent means -- using Israel's and international law only.
They are probably going to have to make that step regardless of what they fear Israel may do. And Israel, in turn, is going to have to respond by staying out of the way when the International community steps in...and by easing restrictions in a stepwise manner as the Palestinian non-violence movement takes hold. Even in the face of massive non-violent protests.
I don't think I'll ever see it happen.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
And those poor, poor Palestinians, living in squalor... and running into Egypt to buy motorcycles, televisions, new cellphones... yeah, my heart bleeds for them.
That generalization is not supported by factual evidence. Evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are poor.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: ... International money will be the only way to do that, and this "investment" is extremely high risk. In fact, the international community should expect to never see a dime in return -- at least not for a very long time.
It will take massive infusions of cash in a highly volatile, poorly administered area.
High risk, low return, massive amounts needed. I really feel motivated to invest. You're a horrible salesperson, go sell hedge funds or something Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A firm rejection of terrorism by the Palestinian people as a whole -- to include rejection of all groups like Hamas, etc., is, the only thing that would make me think a peaceful solution is possible.
I agree, and I also agree that it's unlikely ever to happen. The problem with rejecting violence is that it's one thing to say "ok, I won't fire back when you fire at me in the hopes that you'll stop when you look evil doing it" but it's another thing entirely to say that when you live in the worlds largest refugee camp and you threw molotov cocktails at Israeli tanks on your way home from school growing up, because they'd bombed your house the night before. That's the sort of escalation of violence that isn't just about shot-for-shot retaliation but also about lifelong resentment and antagonism. Which is perfectly understandable in the situation.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situation demands a third party intervention. Israel needs to pull back and not respond. The third party, a neutrally trusted group would provide security, take the brunt of the terrorist hits, and still be the one providing food, schools, money etc. That way Israel doesn't get tagged for the responses, and the neutral party can come to be trusted by the regular people, giving them a reasonable chance to actually reject Hamas.
Without a third party military intervention, I don't see the problem being solved.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Al-Jazeera is not at all what we tend to imagine. Several of the people I work with and for - journalism and communication media experts - have had occasion to become familiar (firsthand) with Al-Jazeera recently. They have been quite impressed with the level of objectivity, freedom, and professionalism. Also, it seems that a lot of the journalists there have also worked for the BBC.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual headquarters in Qatar. So both, I'm guessing. This is based on the operation and who is running it and how it is run not just on output.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob is mistaken, lobbing bombs at each other until one runs out of bombs is not the ultimate result of this strategy. Outside groups are backing both sides, so money is basically unlimited.
No, the ultimate solution to this strategy is Genocide. If they kill one of yours, you kill 10 of theirs, no matter if they are active members of the enemy or just related to them however distantly. They have the same response to you. Eventually one side will realize that peace will come only when they systematically slaughter every one of the enemy. Nuke them all and let God sort them out.
It will be a truly terrible day if Isreal and all her people have to suffer that Genocide.
It will be a truly terrible day if Israel and all her people inflict it.
Justices is relative to when you start keeping count of the bodies. Perhaps we should stop brutalizing for justice and talk to each other of peace.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: So what do you do when you offer them almost everything they ask for and they just take it as a sign of weakness and turn up the heat?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: i don't quote Ayn Rand much, but she did say one thing that I agree with. When faced with an illogical conclusion, check your assumptions.
You limit the possible field of answers by saying "Them" and "they". That assumes that all Palestinians are one group, with one set of goals and one set of aims. They are not. The goals of each are different, and some of them are things that you can not give them even if you wanted too. Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Hamas's backers want Israel to be seen as "Every Arab's Enemy" so that every Arab won't realize their true enemy is the corrupt government that rules them. One group wants to be king of Palestine, so they want the other group destroyed. Heck, all Arafat ever wanted was to be a petty tyrant over as many people as possible.
So what do you do? You follow standard insurgent doctrine. You win the hearts and minds of the Palestinians by befriending them, not killing or humiliating them at random.
A "punishment" only approach is never effective. The other side can't win by playing by your rules, they can only be hurt a bit less, so they quit trying.
Obviously a "reward" only approach is just as ineffective.
Balance.
Terrorists are like ants. You can take really big boots and stomp on their anthill all day long, but you won't get rid of them that way. Stomp all over the garden and you'll just crush the flowers. How you get rid of ants is by poisoning their food supply--which translates to stopping their funding, stopping their recruitment, stopping their support.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The third party, a neutrally trusted group would provide security, take the brunt of the terrorist hits, and still be the one providing food, schools, money etc...
Who in that part of the world would be seen as a neutral party at this point? Out of those, who would have the capability to do such a thing and more importantly, what would motivate them to do such a thing?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Before Bush came to office I might have suggested the United States. Palestinians in the past have largely avoided attacking the US because they knew any brokered peace deal would have to come from the US pressuring Israel, but given what we've done in the last 7 years, there's no hope for that now.
But the European Union still has the credibility with the Palestinians to make it happen. It'll still take US help, probably in the form of money and pressure on Israel, to make it happen, but the Union is the one actually feeding the Palestinians, the vast majority of whom are dependent on them for food. The EU pays for the fuel they use in the power plant in Gaza, and Egypt is rather desparate at the moment for EU monitors to come back and take control of the Rafah border crossing.
I just saw the part where you said "in that part of the world," and in the Middle East, the answer is no one. Israel would never let an Arab nation move in any heavy war materiel or troops into the area. It'd be an unquestionable threat to their security. It'd have to be a Western power (no one in the East as much reason to care at the moment), and with the United States out of the picture, that leaves the rest of NATO. Which is the EU plus Canada. If they only had to contain Gaza, I think they could do it with a relatively small number of troops, if it was Gaza and the West Bank, it'd still be fewer troops than the US is using in Iraq.
The Union has the capability certainly. Their motivation is self preservation, and this is more true for the US than the EU but, Palestine/Israel is a major source of fundraising and recruitment for terrorists in the Middle East. Solving that problem, regardless of the cost, would garner good will, and the stability would dry up terrorist resources throughout the region, to say nothing of the fact that it would make Israel a lot safer. They spend billions every year just to keep the status quo in Gaza. Why not spend billions more to solve the situation permanantly?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: Actually, thats not a half-bad idea. Albeit that depending on the memories in that part of the world, Britain (and perhaps some of the former colonial powers) would need to exempt itself with its history of disastrous meddling in the Middle East or risk making the situation worse with their presence.
Still, the way you put it I personally would not mind giving that *idea* a shot with the caveat that I wouldn't bet any money on it actually happening. I just don't buy that the *motivation* would be enough to compel those nations to spend and put their troops in harms way and in sufficient numbers to permanently solve what they would see as "someone else's problem." I'd like to be proved wrong though Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but I do think that it would have the best chance of succeeding.
The thing is, it requires a shift in thinking. It IS their problem, and not just a wishy washy "it's a human problem" moralistic argument. Europe's Arab population is on the rise, dramatically, and solving Palestine/Israel is going to be crucial I think for longterm European stability. But I think it'll be awhile before they pick up on that.
We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have. On the news we saw images of people chanting "death to America" but there were also candle light vigils for America's fallen. I don't want to get bogged down in talking about how the Middle East feels about us, but with the international good will we had, I think we could have gotten them to go into Palestine. With small troop commitments, mostly cash donations to the cause really, we could've done it. And not only would we be celebrated as the country that saved Palestine, we'd be the country that was attacked by Arabs, and instead of primal anger, we responded with compassion. It would've been the biggest PR coup for the US since WWII.
But now Europe is the last hope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have.
I hear this said quite often, but honestly I am unconvinced that the public sentiment 9-11 initially generated really went very deep. There was a lot of big talk, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I look at it is, look at who we got to go into Afghanistan with us, and to a lesser degree, Iraq. If they were willing to spend lives and billions for that, why wouldn't they for Palestine, which arguably would've been cheaper and less deadly?
I honestly think that if the US had really called the world out, and not just the crappy way that usually gets done, but really called them out, and offered to put our own foot forward, we would've gotten the support necessary.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Bob is mistaken, lobbing bombs at each other until one runs out of bombs is not the ultimate result of this strategy. Outside groups are backing both sides, so money is basically unlimited.
No, the ultimate solution to this strategy is Genocide. If they kill one of yours, you kill 10 of theirs, no matter if they are active members of the enemy or just related to them however distantly. They have the same response to you. Eventually one side will realize that peace will come only when they systematically slaughter every one of the enemy. Nuke them all and let God sort them out.
It will be a truly terrible day if Isreal and all her people have to suffer that Genocide.
It will be a truly terrible day if Israel and all her people inflict it.
Justices is relative to when you start keeping count of the bodies. Perhaps we should stop brutalizing for justice and talk to each other of peace.
I agree with Dan_Raven
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I realize you're only calling Al-Jazeera "better than we've been told," but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that they're presenting a balanced view of the U.S., or that doing so was ever their goal.
A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I have the same reaction when papers/media here in the US print things like the Unabomber's manifesto, and similar.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I realize you're only calling Al-Jazeera "better than we've been told," but I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that they're presenting a balanced view of the U.S., or that doing so was ever their goal.
A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I have the same reaction when papers/media here in the US print things like the Unabomber's manifesto, and similar.
I agree with Bob_Scopatz.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We could have done it. After 9/11 we could have.
I hear this said quite often, but honestly I am unconvinced that the public sentiment 9-11 initially generated really went very deep. There was a lot of big talk, though.
There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11. And Paris'Le Monde famously published the "We Are All Americans" piece. I suppose we'll never really know what could have been achieved with the sentiments of sympathy and unity rising out of 9/11, but I'm inclined to agree with Lyrhawn.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
How often do you read it? And again, I'm talking about Al Jazeera English, not Arabic (though they aren't necessarily horrible). A lot of their news is just as mundane as what you read on CNN or the BBC. And when I read material on Iraq and Israel, there's no obvious bias. I even look for it, and once in a great while I might see a word here or there that seems to be taking sides, but they aren't nearly as biased as the rep their sister organization is. The reputation shouldn't extend to them.
Ironically, the original Al Jazeera was considered by many especially the US, to be a beacon of truth in the region. In the 90's, when most Arab nations could only see the news through state news agencies, Al Jazeera punched through with dissenting opinions, and were harassed for it by the nations in the region. Now they have as many viewers as the BBC (and have in the past and currently employ former BBC members by the way) and are shunned in the Western world, or at least in America. Times sure do change.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know that our dean and our faculty and the dean of the school of journalism were sufficiently impressed (and they started with some serious doubts) that we are willing to partner with them in our Education City endeavor.
We have some serious, world class scholars on media theory, freedom of speech issues and public policy on our faculty. This is not a decision they took lightly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11.
However there were none in the Palestinian territories. Instead, there was dancing in the street. Nice civilized folks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were candelight vigils in Iran for America after 9/11. And Paris'Le Monde famously published the "We Are All Americans" piece. I suppose we'll never really know what could have been achieved with the sentiments of sympathy and unity rising out of 9/11, but I'm inclined to agree with Lyrhawn.
I'm not suggesting the effort shouldn't have been made. I'm suggesting that initial reactions don't necessarily mean very much as a predictor of long-term commitments. People always feel really sorry for victims like that at first.
How much of the world cares about tsunami victims today? When was the last time you heard about it in a big, ongoing way?
----------
You're not really addressing the concerns Bob was talking about, kmbboots.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nor am I claiming to address Bob's concerns. I don't myself have first hand knowledge of them or the expertise of our faculty. All I can do is pass on what experts have said in my presence which was that they were surprised and impressed by their objectivity, freedom, and professionalism. That these were concerns that our faculty had before entering into this agreement and that those concerns were satisfactorily addressed.
I suppose I could also add that the sheikh and sheikha whose government sponsors Al Jazeera are pro-western enough to have launched and nurtured the Qatar Foundation and Education City - which is designed to bring the best of western education to the people of Qatar and the middle east. A branch of Cornell's Medical School, Texas A&M engineering, Georgetown for foreign policy and now Northwestern for Communication and Journalism.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: A news outlet that willingly gives air-time (or print space, whatever) to items prepared and submitted by terrorists is, in my opinion, starting in a very deep credibility hole.
I'm having trouble understanding why this would be the case. I'm assuming you're talking about the tapes of Bin Laden, am I correct?
If you were a major news outlet in possession of those tapes, would you not air them? Hell, they've taught us more about his location, strategies and weaknesses. Furthermore, when I listened to it on A-J Arabic, they prefaced it with (translation) "We received this in an unmarked envelope. We believe it to contain a message from the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. It points to his location being..."
I've never seen them give a single piece of biased commentary, and almost always present both sides of an issue equally.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
